Good news for photographers who yearn for film like images

[vince123123]

Hmm I see, well I'd still be interested to see what the difference is - I seldom shoot film since retiring my film SLR a few years ago so it will be good to see what the highest level of film/prints can do.

Would it be possible to describe what precisely is the difference between these silver and inkjet prints? I haven't really seen good silver prints so I don't know

1 This is one "study" I will have to do for myself, when I have the time.

2 I NEVER said that silver prints are better than inkjet. I said that they are different. I said that I PREFER the look of silver prints over inkjet prints, having seen what I consider to be very good silver prints and inkjet prints. I said that esthetics are different for different people, and some will prefer the look of inkjet over silver.

 

[LittleWolf]

I would love to see the differences in inkjet vs the silver prints - and better yet, you could help point out to me how the silver print is nicer than the inkjet print.

I'm wondering how much of the different look is really due to using silver. If one were to risk damaging an inkjet printhead, one could experiment with inks that form a true silver image (e.g. based on silver nitrate solutions).

I wouldn't be surprised if such a "silver print" looked just like any other inkjet print.

 

[student]

As I had said ad nauseum, the personal esthetics, and I may add, experience of various media, will determine which medium one prefers.

Let us not talk about silver versus pigments.

Let us just talk about inkjet versus inkjet.

Is there a difference in using different inkjet papers, from different companies, or even from the same company? If there is none, why do different prefers different papers, from the same company and from different companies? (Assuming the reason is not monetary, but esthetics)

Is there a difference in using various inkjet printers, from different companies, or even from the same company. If there is none, why do people now shout with joy that Canon has now come up with new printers with X number of ink cartiridges to rival Epson?

And is there a difference in using the same inkjet printer, but using different inks from different companies? If there is none, don't you think that there are a lot of "digital idiots" who spent so much money and efforts etc to use proprietary inks from specialised third parties ink suppliers?

I am of course talking strictly about B&W imagery.

Assuming the answer is affirmative, is it very surprising that there will be a difference in silver versus inkjet?

 

[Pablo]

As I had said ad nauseum, the personal esthetics, and I may add, experience of various media, will determine which medium one prefers.

Let us not talk about silver versus pigments.

Let us just talk about inkjet versus inkjet.

Is there a difference in using different inkjet papers, from different companies, or even from the same company? If there is none, why do different prefers different papers, from the same company and from different companies? (Assuming the reason is not monetary, but esthetics)

Is there a difference in using various inkjet printers, from different companies, or even from the same company. If there is none, why do people now shout with joy that Canon has now come up with new printers with X number of ink cartiridges to rival Epson?

And is there a difference in using the same inkjet printer, but using different inks from different companies? If there is none, don't you think that there are a lot of "digital idiots" who spent so much money and efforts etc to use proprietary inks from specialised third parties ink suppliers?

I am of course talking strictly about B&W imagery.

Assuming the answer is affirmative, is it very surprising that there will be a difference in silver versus inkjet?

Hi student,

My take as far as different papers is concerned:

I can only comment best regards Epsons that I have used, a Canon and na HP.

What appears to effect the result most is the PH of the ink and the matching of same with the papers coating.

Epson I have found to be most critical. With my R800 I get what I see as excellent results with suitable Epson paper.
Note...Suitable means not just any Epson paper.

With my Canon S820 I have found the best results with Canon Pro Glossy and Fuji Premium glossy.
Just about anything else produces banding.

My HP 930 seems best with Kodak glossy.

From speaking to various people from said companies, they all speak of PH differences.

As for third party inks ? well we sell them, but I never suggest them.
I have seen many lousy results from 3rd party inks ( do they formulate the ink to the same PH level as the genuine inks).

I once put a Canon transferency sheet (clear) through an Epson printer and when it came out I held it up.... all the ink ran off the sheet :bigeyes:

Oh, and different printers from same companies.
Yes I find a marked difference between a 4 colour printer and an 8 colour printer from the same company.
A photo of a boat in a lake... 4 ink looks good. A photo of a person in a boat on a lake .... 8 ink is far better than 4 ink.

Sorry for a long blurb and hope it is within your question.

Cheers

 

[AngelZhou]

As someone who born with access to digital-all-available, I would have benefit my familiarity with digital technology specialy stressing that photoshop is my strength. But guess that there is something that make me prefer 'traditional media'.

For personal pleasure,
I prefer to sketch with pen rather than paint with photoshop and tablet,
without denying how expensive art paper and how suck my 'unmanipulated' skill.
For personal pleasure,
I prefer to recieve handwritting letter rather than email,
without denying handwritting letter can be a pain to understand.

For again, personal pleasure,
I'm thinking of expanding my photography medium to film.
without denying how blur and :dunno: anything about film.

The reason for me is simply the process.

As I'm doing all above for personal pleasure ( painting, correspondence, photography in this case ) I guess I prefer the 'traditional' kind because I simply indulge the process. The process of choosing the medium and materials, the process of 'learning it the hard way', the process of receiving something very personal.
For me it's because I simply like the process in traditional media more than in digital media which is pretty much my own personal preference.


Again, personal liking different from one to another and I guess that what makes all of us very special.

 

[blue-moon]

hmm

I think I would look out for the new sensors...

 

[lsisaxon]

hmm

I think I would look out for the new sensors...

Personally, I think it's not the sensor. It's more of the ADC, the signal processing and how it handles the information from the sensor.

Edit: after much thought, I take back this statement I made. I now feel that the phenomenon is due more to sensor overload and charge spillover than the ADC characteristics itself.

 

[tsdh]

From what I read, they have some form of dynamic compression, so for highlights, a portion of the LSBs are discarded.

I think at the end of the day, it's because of the dynamic curve characteristic of the film vs the characteristics of the digital sensor and the strengths of film are very evident at both ends of the curve, but not so much evident in the linear region. This is very hard to be replicated digitally unless a lot of headroom is put in. Very much the same for audio recording.

Are there any image comparison out there which shows the degradation caused by "information loss" in compressed NEF?
So far I found the highlight in digital photos can not be as nice as film. As you said, the non-linear curve characteristic of film is very hard to be replicated by digital. Putting a lot of headroom meaning reduced dynamic range, which I believe the manufacturers will not do.
For certain art-photo, film will also excel. Below is an example of grain emphasis on film. Unlike digital, film's character as "edge detector" faithfully render the edge of object with the grains denser at shadows than highlight. The size of grain which "clumped" on shadows, slowly become smaller toward highlights. This characteristic is very difficult to be replicated by digital. Yes, you can artifically add grain at post processing, but it is uniform, sprayed across the image and act as a "screen" superimposed with the image rather than the dots forming the image.

 

[StreetShooter]

I get what you're trying to say. It's a great explanation. It's a little bit more involved than just adding noise, which is what I used to do. But I think it is possible. This is clumping, right? So is it Tri-X or digital?

 

[lsisaxon]

Are there any image comparison out there which shows the degradation caused by "information loss" in compressed NEF?
So far I found the highlight in digital photos can not be as nice as film. As you said, the non-linear curve characteristic of film is very hard to be replicated by digital. Putting a lot of headroom meaning reduced dynamic range, which I believe the manufacturers will not do.
For certain art-photo, film will also excel. Below is an example of grain emphasis on film. Unlike digital, film's character as "edge detector" faithfully render the edge of object with the grains denser at shadows than highlight. The size of grain which "clumped" on shadows, slowly become smaller toward highlights. This characteristic is very difficult to be replicated by digital. Yes, you can artifically add grain at post processing, but it is uniform, sprayed across the image and act as a "screen" superimposed with the image rather than the dots forming the image.
http://gallery.clubsnap.com/data/500/Frame8.png

No so far not. Even though it is compressed, there should be no discernible difference unless you expand the dynamic range where data is taken out.

After giving it much thought between my earlier login and now, I now feel that the phenomena you showed in your earlier post is not likely to be due to compression.

Even after compression, if the information is correct, 9.4 bit is equivalent to 9.4 stops of brightness level which is already quite impressive. The reason I can think of for the highlights to have a step response would be due to sensor overload and the charges spill over to the adjacent pixel. Otherwise, the tone should still be continuous up to the brightest point. This phenomena will not happen on every picture, and even if it does, it will vary from picture to picture.

 

[lsisaxon]

I get what you're trying to say. It's a great explanation. It's a little bit more involved than just adding noise, which is what I used to do. But I think it is possible. This is clumping, right? So is it Tri-X or digital?

http://streetshooter.clubsnap.org/clumping.jpg

I may be wrong because I'm more versed with colour, however, I think this looks more like digital with gaussian noise masked on. The grain characteristic of film is actually quite different. Maybe a closer inspection would reveal more.

 

[Zerstorer]

The size of grain which "clumped" on shadows, slowly become smaller toward highlights. This characteristic is very difficult to be replicated by digital. Yes, you can artifically add grain at post processing, but it is uniform, sprayed across the image and act as a "screen" superimposed with the image rather than the dots forming the image.

As long as you can accurately describe the look, it should be replicable in PS as well. From the above description, a similar effect can be achieved in PS using tonal masks and larger grains for the darker tones. Which I believe Streetshooter has done.

 

[dslang]

Streetshooter: photoshop

 

[tsdh]

I get what you're trying to say. It's a great explanation. It's a little bit more involved than just adding noise, which is what I used to do. But I think it is possible. This is clumping, right? So is it Tri-X or digital?

http://streetshooter.clubsnap.org/clumping.jpg

Finally.. StreetShooter, the master of digital-grain, come out from hiding. I remember some years back, you devised a technique using Photoshop to mimic the grain of film on digital images. That technique is the best I've ever seen. People who had not seen film so much, will certainly impressed. Only certain people who had worked extensively with film, B&W film, will see the difference.
Your digital-grain's size is not varied toward shadows, all uniform. It is just the amount of grain varied. But if you look closely (especially in print, not in computer screen), film-grain will vary in size, larger grain toward shadows. Look at my sample picture, you will see it.
(Note: film-grain is not a single silver-particle, but a "clump" of particles).
Second point:
Film grains construct the components of the image, notable on the dark lines. While digital add-on grains, just like a masking-screen overlaying the image. See my example photo; the dress at the girl's shoulder, were totally constructed by grains.

 

[lsisaxon]

As long as you can accurately describe the look, it should be replicable in PS as well. From the above description, a similar effect can be achieved in PS using tonal masks and larger grains for the darker tones. Which I believe Streetshooter has done.

It's not as easy because grains sizes are different for sensitivities to different level of light and so there will be several different size grains. I tried to generate different size noise and mask them at different threshold level but I don't think I am able to get anything decent yet.

 

[student]

As long as you can accurately describe the look, it should be replicable in PS as well. From the above description, a similar effect can be achieved in PS using tonal masks and larger grains for the darker tones. Which I believe Streetshooter has done.

Just a thought.

I am not a digital guru.

But why so much effort (needing a master of digital grain) to replicate the effect of Tri-X? And even then, some like Isisaxon appears to doubt that it looks like film.

As for me, I only "judge" on prints. Such images as posted by SS in the web are but inferior B**t**Ds of the prints. To me it is meaningless to make such comments based on such intenet images.

I just wonder if one really want the film effects so badly, why don't just use film in the first place?

If not, why not just accept digital characteristics in its own right, than trying to mimick film?

 

[lsisaxon]

Just a thought.

I am not a digital guru.

But why so much effort (needing a master of digital grain) to replicate the effect of Tri-X? And even then, some like Isisaxon appears to doubt that it looks like film.

As for me, I only "judge" on prints. Such images as posted by SS in the web are but inferior B**t**Ds of the prints. To me it is meaningless to make such comments based on such intenet images.

I just wonder if one really want the film effects so badly, why don't just use film in the first place?

If not, why not just accept digital characteristics in its own right, than trying to mimick film?

Just to add to the points..

BTW, it's also cheaper to use film if you need to go through such efforts to get the image you want. A film SLR cost only a fraction of a dSLR. :thumbsup:

Bottomline is still to be a master of the equipment. Know what it does best and use it to your advantage. Digital is supposed to be convenient for me, and I am someone who doesn't like to do post processing also.

I shoot digital with Cloudy (6500K) white balance and unless for some reason my exposures come out under (if it's too much over, I'll just discard the image anyway), I will just use the JPG straight out of the camera. (See I don't even shoot RAW.. unless I have a compelling need to..).

 

[Zerstorer]

Just a thought.

I am not a digital guru.

But why so much effort (needing a master of digital grain) to replicate the effect of Tri-X? And even then, some like Isisaxon appears to doubt that it looks like film.

As for me, I only "judge" on prints. Such images as posted by SS in the web are but inferior B**t**Ds of the prints. To me it is meaningless to make such comments based on such intenet images.

I just wonder if one really want the film effects so badly, why don't just use film in the first place?

It's all for aesthetics as what you have said earlier. For one who has shot digital and want the aesthetics and feel conveyed by certain film effects, emulating it would be the key. You can manipulate a digital image to imitate different film characteristics.

To achieve a perfect imitation might not be possible, but there is some point where its "good enough". In a blind test, few would be the wiser for it.

If not, why not just accept digital characteristics in its own right, than trying to mimick film?

Digital is just a medium, whatever look you want to achieve comes from your own creative output. I don't think digital has any fixed set of characteristics per se. The same RAW file can look vastly different when output by different software and that's before any fancy processing is done.

 

[student]

It's all for aesthetics as what you have said earlier. For one who has shot digital and want the aesthetics and feel conveyed by certain film effects, emulating it would be the key. You can manipulate a digital image to imitate different film characteristics.

To achieve a perfect imitation might not be possible, but there is some point where its "good enough". In a blind test, few would be the wiser for it.


Digital is just a medium, whatever look you want to achieve comes from your own creative output. I don't think digital has any fixed set of characteristics per se. The same RAW file can look vastly different when output by different software and that's before any fancy processing is done.

This is just for discussion.

It appears to me that the key word here is "IMITATION". I had previously written an article under "General Discussions" called "Vegetarian Charsiew". That discussion/thread talked about such issues as imitation.

I supposed given more time, and more technology, and more lessons in learning how to use the ever changing software, and more money spent on purchasing such softwares, there will come a time when the IMITATION will be indistinguisable from the "REAL THING".

The "REAL THING" which has existed before digital.

But even allowing for such wonders as mentioned, unless the images are strictly for ICD viewing, you still have the problem of the final output - the PRINT.

And I suppose that given even more technology, and more software, and more purchasing, one day, it might be possible to have a REAL silver print done "digitally".

I think for my B&W, I will stick to my films.

But I do like the colors of my Kashmiri boys from Olympus E1.

 

[lsisaxon]

This is just for discussion.

It appears to me that the key word here is "IMITATION". I had previously written an article under "General Discussions" called "Vegetarian Charsiew". That discussion/thread talked about such issues as imitation.

I supposed given more time, and more technology, and more lessons in learning how to use the ever changing software, and more money spent on purchasing such softwares, there will come a time when the IMITATION will be indistinguisable from the "REAL THING".

The "REAL THING" which has existed before digital.

But even allowing for such wonders as mentioned, unless the images are strictly for ICD viewing, you still have the problem of the final output - the PRINT.

And I suppose that given even more technology, and more software, and more purchasing, one day, it might be possible to have a REAL silver print done "digitally".

I think for my B&W, I will stick to my films.

But I do like the colors of my Kashmiri boys from Olympus E1.

I think that would not be too difficult. Just need to buy a Frontier machine and feed it with B&W paper and chemicals.